Page images
PDF
EPUB

that the "grandfather" rights accrued in favor of the lessor, citing in support thereof, Gibbs Bus Line, Inc., Common Carrier Application, 33 M. C. C. 131, and the cases cited therein. On the other hand, applicant's successor in interest contends that it is entitled to "grandfather” rights, since interstate and intrastate operations over the Alexandria route were begun prior to the lease of intrastate rights from Monroe; and that the lease of the intrastate rights by Transfer, its predecessor, was primarily for the purpose of relieving Monroe of an unprofitable operation and to remove a competitor from a route over which there was insufficient traffic moving to support the two operations.

In Gibbs Bus Lines, Inc., Common Carrier Application, supra, division 5 reviewed briefly the general question of leased operating rights. In that proceeding and in the cases there cited, namely, Inter-Carolinas Motor Bus Co. Com. Car. Application, 28 M. C. C. 665, and Virginia Stage Lines, Inc., Common Carrier Application, 31 M. C. C. 110, division 5 found that the "grandfather" rights accrued to the lessors. In each of these proceedings, however, the applicants therein did not commence operations over the routes leased until after the leases were negotiated, and, in two of these proceedings, it was admitted that the operations conducted by the lessees were on behalf of the lessors.

In the instant proceeding, Transfer or its successors has been engaged in both interstate and intrastate operations over the Alexandria route since sometime in 1933. While Transportation first leased and then purchased all the intrastate rights of Transfer or its successor, including the Alexandria route, Transportation never operated over the Alexandria route in either interstate or intrastate commerce until sometime in 1942. To the contrary, operations over the Alexandria route continued to be conducted by Transfer in the same manner as conducted prior to the lease to Transportation, with the knowledge and apparent consent of Transportation. The Louisiana commission also had knowledge that the operations over the Alexandria route continued to be conducted by Transfer. Approximately 2 months after the lease of Transfer's intrastate rights to Transportation, Transfer leased Monroe's intrastate rights over the Alexandria route but, as stated, Transfer never ceased operations over this route. Transfer claims that this lease was negotiated with Monroe because Monroe did not desire to continue its operations over the Alexandria route owing to lack of available traffic. The terms of the lease appear to substantiate Transfer's contention. There is no explanation why Motor Lines applied to the Louisiana commission for intrastate rights when it received notice of the cancelation of the lease with Monroe, since Transportation had still not begun interstate or intrastate operations over the Alexandria route. However, we do not consider this latter fact to be controlling in view of the other facts of

record. Under all the circumstances, we are of the opinion that applicant and its successor have been in bona fide operation as a common carrier by motor vehicle, in interstate or foreign commerce, of general commodities, with exceptions, over the Alexandria route since prior to the statutory date.

As seen, prior to the further hearing herein, Transportation purchased the rights of applicant and, accordingly, the authority herein will be granted to applicant's successor in interest.

Upon further hearing, we find that applicant was, on June 1, 1935, and that applicant and its successor in interest continuously since have been, in bona fide operation, in interstate or foreign commerce, as a common carrier by motor vehicle of general commodities, except household goods as defined in Practices of Motor Common Carriers of Household Goods, 17 M. C. C. 467, between Alexandria and Lake Charles, La., over a regular route, as follows, from Alexandria to Iowa, La., over U. S. Highway 165, and thence to Lake Charles over U. S. Highway 90, serving all intermediate points; that Herrin Transportation Company, Inc., as successor in interest to applicant, is entitled to a certificate authorizing continuance of such operations; and that, in all other respects, the application, to the extent that it was reopened for further hearing, should be denied.

Upon compliance by Herrin Transportation Company, Inc., with the requirements of sections 215 and 217 of the Interstate Commerce Act, and with our rules and regulations thereunder, an appropriate certificate, with duplications eliminated, will be issued. An appropriate order will be entered.

COMMISSIONER LEE was necessarily absent and did not participate in this proceeding.

42 M. C. C.

No. MC-74367

BILLY PALMA WRIGHT COMMON CARRIER
APPLICATION

Decided June 8, 1943

On reconsideration, findings in prior report, 34 M. C. C. 817, modified so as to authorize operations by applicant as a common carrier of general commodities, with certain exceptions, between points in Buncombe County, N. C., on the one hand, and Baltimore, Md., Philadelphia and Conshohocken, Pa., and points in the New York, N. Y., commercial zone, on the other, over irregular routes. Issuance of a certificate approved, upon compliance by applicant with certain conditions.

H. B. Campbell for applicant, and other appearances shown in prior report.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON RECONSIDERATION

BY THE COMMISSION:

In the prior report herein, 34 M. C. C. 817, decided June 23, 1942, division 5 granted applicant, Billy Palma Wright, of Asheville, N. C. doing business as Wright Motor Lines, a certificate, under the "grandfather" clause of section 206 (a) of the Interstate Commerce Act, authorizing continuance of operations as a common carrier by motor vehicle, in interstate or foreign commerce, of general commodities, with certain exceptions,1 between Asheville, on the one hand, and, on the other, Baltimore, Md., Philadelphia and Conshohocken, Pa., and points in the New York, N. Y., commercial zone, as defined in New York, N. Y., Commercial Zone, 1 M. C. C. 665 and 2 M. C. C. 191, over irregular routes, and denied the application in all other respects. A certificate has been issued to applicant authorizing the described operations. It has been brought to our attention, however, that the limitation of applicant's base of operations to Asheville may have been unduly restrictive. We are therefore reopening the proceeding on our own motion for reconsideration upon the present record solely for the purpose of giving further consideration to this matter. The facts concerning applicant's operations to the extent set forth in the prior report will not be restated here.

'Articles of unusual value, dangerous explosives, commodities in bulk, those requiring special equipment, and household goods as defined in Practices of Motor Common Carriers of Household Goods, 17 M. C. C. 467.

We have analyzed carefully the evidence submitted, and, while it is clear that the preponderance of shipments transported by applicant, moving to or from Baltimore, Philadelphia, Conshohocken, and points in the New York commercial zone, originated at or were destined to Asheville, there have been some movements both prior to and since June 1, 1935, from points beyond the corporate limits of Asheville, such as Azalia, Black Mountain, and Biltmore, N. C. These shipments have been transported to several of the other points named.

The designated North Carolina points are all in Buncombe County, N. C., which embraces a comparatively small area. Indeed, all except a small portion of the county is within a radius of approximately 10 miles of the corporate limits of Asheville. In view of applicant's service at other points in this county in addition to Asheville, we are of the opinion that the base area to which applicant is reasonably entitled may properly be found to be Buncombe County. On reconsideration, we find that on and continuously since June 1, 1935, applicant has been engaged in bona fide operation, in interstate or foreign commerce, as a common carrier by motor vehicle of general commodities, except articles of unusual value, dangerous explosives, commodities in bulk, those requiring special equipment, and household goods as defined in Practices of Motor Common Carriers of Household Goods, 17 M. C. C. 467, between points in Buncombe County, N. C., on the one hand, and Baltimore, Md., Philadelphia and Conshohocken, Pa., and points in the New York commercial zone, as defined in New York, N. Y., Commercial Zone, supra, over irregular routes, through Virginia, the District of Columbia, and Delaware when necessary; and that applicant is entitled to a certificate authorizing continuance of such operations.

Upon compliance by applicant with the requirements of sections 215 and 217 of the act and our rules and regulations thereunder, and upon surrender by applicant of the certificate issued him in this proceeding on February 9, 1943, an appropriate certificate will be issued. An appropriate order will be entered.

COMMISSIONER LEE, being necessarily absent, did not participate in this proceeding.

42 M. C. C.

No. MC-78632 (SUB-No. 1)1

HOOVER MOTOR EXPRESS COMPANY, INC., EXTENSION OF OPERATIONS-INTERMEDIATE POINTS

Submitted August 27, 1942. Decided June 4, 1943

1. In No. MC-78632 (Sub-No. 1), public convenience and necessity found to require operation by applicant as a common carrier by motor vehicle, of general commodities, with certain exceptions, (1) serving Athens, Tenn., as an intermediate point without restrictions in connection with operations at present authorized between Knoxville and Chattanooga, Tenn., over U. S. Highway 11; and (2) serving Ocoee, Tenn., and all points on U. S. Highway 411 between Ocoee and Cartersville, Ga., as intermediate points in connection with operations at present authorized between Knoxville and Cartersville over that route.

2. In No. MC-78632 (Sub-No. 27), public convenience and necessity found to require operation by applicant as a common carrier by motor vehicle, of general commodities, with certain exceptions, between East St. Louis, Ill., and Birmingham, Ala., over a specified route, serving intermediate points located south of but not including Jackson, Tenn., and Jackson restricted to traffic moving to or from points south thereof.

3. In No. MC-78631 (Sub-No. 6), public convenience and necessity found to require operation by applicant as a common carrier by motor vehicle, of general commodities, with certain exceptions, serving the off-route point of Wales, Tenn., and all intermediate points between Memphis and Chattanooga, Tenn.

4. Issuance of a certificate approved upon compliance by applicant with certain conditions, and applications denied in all other respects.

J. M. Simmons for applicant.

Charles Campbell Brown, Charles Hudson, Jr., William J. Rains, James W. Wrape, R. Boyte C. Howell, Jr., Walton Whitwell, Charles E. Banks, O. R. Wagner, Frank B. Creekmore, Allen Post, A. S. Clay, Robert H. Polk, B. H. Needham, M. F. Wilhelm, Dan McGugin, R. C. Dodge, and B. W. LaTourette for protestants.

1 This report also embraces No. MC-78632 (Sub-No. 27), Hoover Motor Express Company, Inc., Extension of Operations-Alton, Ill.-Birmingham, Ala.; and No. MC-78631 (Sub-No. 6), Hoover Motor Express Company, Inc., Extension of Operations-Intermediate Points-Tennessee. No. MC-78632 (Sub-No. 45) is the number assigned to No. MC-78631 (Sub-No. 6) after the merger of the Hoover Truck Company, Inc., into the Hoover Motor Express Company, Inc., authorized in Hoover Motor Exp. Co., Inc.— Merger, 37 M. C. C. 519.

42 M. C. C.

« PreviousContinue »